- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:07:17 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 5/18/2011 10:01 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > I think the WG needs to take a single, binding decision on the following question, before we can settle the issue about string literals. > > Ignoring language tags for the moment, should a plain, untyped string used as a literal in RDF be considered to have the type xsd:string, or the type rdf:PlainLiteral, or some other type, or to not have a type at all? From SPARQL's point of view, this question has been answered as xsd:string for a while. I'd like this to be RDF's official answer as well. Lee > > Pat > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 14:07:46 UTC